About the cover. Marion. A word from the children s teacher.

Transcription

1

2 About the cover In 2017, the HRC organised an our amazing brain event with siblings of children in Starship Hospital,. The goal was to share the wonder and resilience of the human brain and excite them about health research. Dr Thomas Park of the Centre for Brain Research Centre gave an inspiring lesson on the brain and students built on this information to produce the artwork presented on the cover and section pages of this report. The art work (right) has been framed and presented to Ronald McDonald House (RMH). A word from the children s teacher. The Amazing Brain' session was a lesson like no other in RMH classroom! The team from the Health Research Council of New Zealand worked with Dr Thomas Park from the to give the students a wonderful, interactive experience. The students varied in ages and abilities from 5-15 years and everyone were totally involved with the PowerPoint discussion, Memory Test and the artwork. The highlight for everyone was being able to observe and handle 'real brains'. This brought the facts to life. There has been wonderful feedback from parents saying how much their child absorbed and talked about their session. In fact, two students from Vanuatu have since returned to their island to spread their knowledge. Their sponsors pass on their thanks for giving the boys a life-changing experience. In class we have followed up the lesson with brain gym exercises, making 'brain snacks', taking 'brain breaks' and deep breathing to give our brains fresh oxygen. Everyone is aware how precious their brain is and the importance of its care. Thanks so much to Dr Thomas Park and the team at HRC for such an enriching and fun session. Marion

3 Table of Contents Chairman s Report... 1 Chief Executive s Summary... 2 Part 1. Our Role and Outcomes... 4 About the HRC... 4 What we do... 4 What we aim to achieve... 6 How we go about it... 6 Our environment and drivers... 7 How are we addressing Government goals, priorities, and recommendations?... 7 Addressing the Recommendations of the Government s Strategic Refresh of the HRC... 9 Tackling the areas of greatest need... 9 Leadership Continuous improvement in investment processes Managing organisational health and capability The HRC team Accountability to our Ministries Annual reports monthly and quarterly reports Other reports Scope of the HRC s functions and intended operations Equity Position Part 2. Progress against outcomes and strategic intentions How we have built our performance story The HRC's outcome framework Outcome 1: New knowledge, solutions, and innovations improve health Why is this important? Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/ Outcome 2: The healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation Why is this important? Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/ Outcome 3: The best clinicians and health researchers are supported and retained in NZ Why is this important? Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/ Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness, and uptake of health research is increased Why is this important? Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/ Statement of responsibility HRC Outputs Introduction... 40

4 Output 1: Health research contracts Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output What we fund under this Output Our Annual Funding Round Explorer grants Output 2: Career-development contracts Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output What we fund under this output Output 3: Co-funding relationships Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Scope of the Output Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases Catalyst Crown Fund The Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) Output 4: Contribution to policy, regulatory and ethical frameworks Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Scope of the Output Part 3: Organisational information Leadership, accountability, and culture Recruitment, selection, and induction Employee development, promotion, and exit Flexibility and work design Remuneration, recognition, and conditions Harassment and bullying prevention A safe and healthy environment Permission to Act Disclosure of the Council Crown Entities Act 2004 section 68(6) Membership of Council and statutory committees Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense Statement of Financial Position Statement of Resources Independent Auditor s Report Appendix 1: The HRC s functions under the Health Research Council Act Appendix 2a: HRC contracts current as of 30 June 2017, or expired in the financial year Appendix 2b: HRC contracts that began between 1 July 2016 and 30 June Appendix 3: Key focus of the HRC s Research Investment Streams and their relationship to the outcome framework Glossary of abbreviations and terms

5 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 1 Chairman s Report This has been an important year for health research in New Zealand. We have increased our investment in excellent research and supported development of the first New Zealand Health Research Strategy (NZHRD). The Strategy charges the HRC with funding excellent health research, reducing disparities in health outcomes for Māori and Pacific peoples, and sustaining a strong health research workforce. For me, what is really exciting about the NZHRS is that the work was led by MBIE and the Ministry of Health, who are also taking action to make the vision a reality. MBIE will lead work on strengthening our national health research infrastructure and systems, whilst the Ministry of Health will institute measures to make the health sector ready to engage in and respond to results of the excellent research that we fund. The Strategy recognises that the HRC cannot make the changes needed in isolation, and has responded with a unified approach that goes further than ever before to support health research. The injection of an additional $97m to increase HRC investment to $120m per annum by 2020, further underlines the commitment. The additional $10m that we received in 2016/17 meant that we could support more vitally important research, detailed in this report. Of particular note, we invested in seven research projects focused on improving the health of New Zealand s Pacific community worth over $6 million. Five of these projects were led by Pacific researchers, with the remaining two having strong representation from Pacific researchers on the team. I am delighted to see that our efforts to build Pacific health research capacity are now beginning to make a difference. The new funding comes with obligations, which we are ready to take on, having spent much of the last year examining needs and issues we should address. Over the next year we will work hard to put in place the best ways to make more strategic investments and develop areas of national focus to guide planning, investment and conduct of health research for the greatest benefit in New Zealand. We are focused on investing in health research that strengthens our country and our country s health. I would like to thank the Board members that completed their service in May this year Ms Elspeth Ludemann; Dr Matire Harwood and Dr Conway Powell. Their contribution to the HRC has been invaluable and their hard work and dedication has been greatly appreciated by the Board and the HRC Team. I look forward to working with our new members - Dr Monique Faleafa; Mr Tony Norman and Dr Will Barker, who have been chosen because of the considerable skills they bring to the Board table. Dr Lester Levy, CNZM Chair The success rate for Project contracts increased from 9 percent to 15 percent funding rates that we have not seen for over a decade. We were also able to fund a third of the applications for our Emerging Researcher First Grants, so crucial in fostering the next generation of the HRC workforce.

6 2 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Chief Executive s Summary The past 12 months have been the most challenging, and yet the most rewarding since I joined the HRC in 2015 a major development being that New Zealand now has its first ever Health Research Strategy, clearly noting the government commitment to investing in health research to benefit our country and our people. Working with our two ministries (Ministry of Health and MBIE) to develop the strategy provided me with a number of incredibly valuable opportunities to meet with dedicated researchers, clinicians and other stakeholders at the series of consultation meetings throughout the country. Their ideas and input has been invaluable in guiding the final strategy document, and also our thinking on how best to implement that strategy in how we work. While our investment largely focuses on supporting research in New Zealand, we have been working to strengthen connections with international research programmes where working together will achieve things we could not do separately. Research leaders and funders in many countries are interested in the value and quality of New Zealand health research and researchers. Two significant new international partnerships are: The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases, which includes three of our major research partner countries: Australia, Canada, and China. Our first initiative as part of GACD is to partner with the Ministry of Health to discover better strategies to support Māori and Pacific youth with mental health problems. This year we have also been working to develop valuable national partnerships, with just two examples being the launch of a new partnership with PHARMAC for a Joint Pharmaceuticals Research Fund, and a strategic fund with the Ministry of Health and the Healthier Lives National Science Challenge to tackle areas where new approaches are urgently needed to improve outcomes in longterm conditions like diabetes. Within the organisation, we continue to be committed to high standards, and commissioned an independent audit of our investment processes. Results showed we have sound processes and that there are no major problems to address. Nevertheless, we will continue to build evaluation into all that we do. I would like to acknowledge all the HRC team, and our extended family around NZ and globally, who contribute to ensuring we invest in the best health science for New Zealand. Another first we held an event designed to get our youngest citizens involved in, and passionate about, health research, and this produced our cover art this year. Children staying at Ronald MacDonald House in (siblings of children at Starship Hospital) were inspired by neuroscientist Dr Thomas Park to learn about our amazing brain. Pictures of this creative team at work herald each new section of the report. Who knows maybe there is a future health researcher in the mix? In March 2017, the HRC signed a formal agreement with the Natural Science Foundation of China, paving the way for new scientific collaborations in biomedical research. We have already had a series of meetings to underpin future investment aimed at realising these ventures. Professor Kathryn McPherson Chief Executive

7

8 4 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Part 1. Our Role and Outcomes Our vision: improved health and quality of life for all About the HRC What we do The Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) is a Crown agent (since 2005) and the government s principal funder of health research. We are answerable to the Minister of Health, as our ownership minister, and the Minister of Science and Innovation, who provides the majority of our funding. As a Crown agent, we are required to give effect to the general policy of the Government in relation to health research when performing our role. The HRC s relationships with the Minister of Health and Minister of Science and Innovation are addressed in a memorandum of understanding between the two Ministers, dated 30 August 2001, and updated in We were created by the Health Research Council Act as a Crown Entity in 1990, which set out some clear functions for the HRC. Put simply, our key functions are: 1. To advise the Minister of Health on national health research policy and commission research to implement it; 2. To negotiate funding for health research from the government every 3 years; 3. To foster the national health research workforce, recruiting, training, and retaining researchers; 4. To both support researchers with good ideas and initiate research in areas considered high priority; 5. To consult widely when setting the priorities for health research, including with our Ministers, the District Health Boards, stakeholders, and consumers; and 6. To ensure that all our committees use appropriate assessment standards. Appendix 1 provides the exact wording of our full functions under the Act. The HRC has been operating for 27 years in We had our genesis in the Medical Research Council of New Zealand, which was established in 1951, and so we have over 60 years of institutional knowledge to build upon. We have built rigorous, robust, and equitable investment processes over this time that ensure taxpayers dollars are well spent on the research and the people that will make a real difference to New Zealand. We regularly review and update our processes in light of evidence of how to do it better. At any one time, we manage in the region of 300 research contracts, and 100 targeted on career development. These contracts are mostly with universities, but also with nongovernment organisations, Māori and Pacific research organisations and communities, and private research institutes. We also have a role in maintaining a safe and ethical health research environment in New Zealand, and advising the government on adopting new technologies and procedures.

9 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 5 The HRC at a glance Our Vision: Improved health and quality of life for all

10 6 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 What we aim to achieve The HRC is the Crown entity with the primary responsibility for facilitating the government s investment in health research. We generate the knowledge and discoveries needed to bring a healthier future for New Zealanders. We need better evidence to enable New Zealanders to live healthier lives and prevent disease, and to get the optimal, most cost-effective treatments when illness does affect us. Whilst thousands of people live with conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment or cure, we want to give them, and our society, hope that things will be different in the future for their family/whanau and our researchers are part of future solutions that will work for our people. We want New Zealanders to understand and celebrate the skills and achievement of our health research community and support health research as a critical part of our future success. We need to anticipate the knowledge needs of our stakeholders and work with them, so that we can provide the evidence to underpin sound policy development and strategic planning in both the government and nongovernment sectors. We want to support our researchers to explore exciting innovations, even if this involves some degree of investment risk (see our Explorer Grants, p43), so that our population can be the first to benefit and our economy boosted by access to the global health market. We aim to improve the quality of our healthcare system through embedding a research ethos in everyday practice and drawing our clinicians into multi-disciplinary teams that will find solutions to our specific national issues. We work to do everything we can to ensure that our taxpayers dollars support only the things that are most likely to make a positive difference, and so we will continue to put every effort into ensuring we have the processes in place to back the best. We also take every opportunity to partner with other funders to maximise the use of limited resources and share our investment processes and expertise for the best result possible. We want to train, maintain, and retain a research workforce with the skills and capability to address our current and future health challenges. To do this we must have a fit-for-purpose career-development programme and offer the range of research opportunities that will allow promising health researchers and clinicians to advance their careers in New Zealand. We must build a system that plays the long game, because it often takes 20 years to realise the impact of our research investment. This has been the case with some of the recent landmark achievements arising from HRC funding, such as the development of a new vaccine for cancer and major breakthroughs in the treatment for heart failure. How we go about it Most of the funding for our operational costs and investments is provided by Vote Business, Science and Innovation, with additional contributions made by Vote Health and stakeholders involved in the HRC s Partnership Programme. Our funding allocations are divided into four Outputs, outlined below. Supporting NZ research: Output 1 Health Research Contracts Building Research Careers: Output 2 Career Development Partnering with stakeholders: Output 3 Co-funding Relationships Keeping NZ health research ethical and safe: Output 4 Policy, Regulatory, and Ethical Frameworks and Relationships

11 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 7 These Outputs provide the framework for reporting in our Statement of Service Performance. Our core activity is to identify the research that will make the biggest impact on the health of New Zealanders, and support innovations that will boost the New Zealand economy. What is less widely known is that we have a crucial role in advising the Minister of Health on the uptake of new health technologies and ensuring the safety of large clinical trials. We are also recognised internationally as leaders in building indigenous health research capacity through the targeted processes we have developed to support Māori research paradigms. We are the conduit that connects health research activity in New Zealand, working with other funders, charities, and stakeholders. This is a role that we take very seriously and the need for better co-ordination and co-operation in the sector is increasingly shaping our strategic thinking. Another major area of focus for the HRC is the translation of research findings into improvements in healthcare at every level. We do this by training and engaging clinicians in research, partnering with our stakeholders to involve them in designing knowledge solutions, and communicating our findings to our ultimate stakeholder the New Zealand public. Our environment and drivers While the HRC is the government s principal funding agency for health research, significant public funds are also invested in health research through the Marsden Fund, the Science and Innovation Group within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Tertiary Education Commission. We are heavily focused on working collaboratively wherever possible to maximise the resources available for health research and capacity building. Our strategy is firmly rooted in the health needs of the New Zealand population, Government priorities, the knowledge needs of our stakeholders, and emerging threats. How are we addressing Government goals, priorities, and recommendations? The overarching outcome that the HRC seeks to achieve is improved health and quality of life for all New Zealanders. Our efforts to meet this outcome ultimately contribute to New Zealand s two health and disability system outcomes: New Zealanders living longer, healthier, and more independent lives, and the health system is cost-effective and supports a productive economy. Health research creates new knowledge, solutions, and innovations, and improves the quality and cost-effectiveness of the healthcare system. By keeping New Zealanders healthy and productive, we support economic growth. The HRC also funds innovative research that results in new products and processes with commercial value. This is achieved by investing in a balanced combination of basic and applied research that ensures impact is achieved over the short and longer terms. The Government has recognised the importance of health research in the National Statement of Science Investments (NSSI). The HRC works with the science and innovation sector to deliver research within the priority framework (see the diagram on p8). Our efforts to attract and retain the best health researchers in New Zealand also directly deliver to the need to increase the number of excellent scientists, as outlined in the NSSI. Increasing the impact, responsiveness and uptake of the excellent research we fund is a key part of what we do, and impact and excellence are the two pillars on which the NSSI is built. In the 2016/17 Letter of Expectations from the Minister of Health, particular emphasis was placed on: working with other agencies across the health and disability system to improve efficiency and effectiveness and combine efforts where it is necessary to achieve results;

12 8 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 MBIE s National Statement of Science Investment how we build on the pillars of excellence and impact to bridge the gaps and support the vision Showing the key components of MBIE s strategy (green text) in realising the vision for 2025, based on the pillars of impact and excellence, and the ways in which the HRC is working to bridge the gap (black text). Gaps to bridge in 2015 We need: more good scientists; a simpler more agile funding system; a focus on excellence & impact & evidence of tangible benefits from science for NZ people Vision for 2025 A highly dynamic science system that enriches NZ, making a more visible measurable contribution to our productivity & wellbeing through excellent science The best people A rigorous approach Optimal results Excellence The prestigious Sir Charles Hercus Health Research, builds future research leaders Our investment processes involve over 700 national & international experts, doing both external & internal review of applications Health research funded by the HRC is highly cited internationally & our data suggest that the HRC outperforms other NZ funding sectors in terms of the quality & impact of publications arising from investments in the majority of fields Our results contribute to improving the health of our country and our economy with new diagnostics, pharmaceuticals & vaccines coming on stream & bringing the latest treatments to our people, as well as returns from commercialisation Improved population health & health status - especially for disadvantaged groups Reduction in health maintenance costs Early detection & mitigation of health risks Impact World-leading indigenous health research capacity-building & funding processes, only govt Pacific health research funding & career development programme in NZ, monitoring & oversight of HRC research relevant to Māori, Pacific peoples, older adults, children & youth, & people with disability. Dedicated investment for large, diverse portfolio of research on health & wellbeing - with emphasis on prevention HRC-funded research highlights potential saving worth millions of dollars for our health system. bring researchers, clinicians & decision-makers together through our Partnership Programme activities & our dedicated funding for NZ health-delivery research Agile processes with rapid resposnse funding for emerging health threats, large portfolio of applied biomedical research on biomarkers & diagnostics, major investment in prevention & early diagnosis of diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Generate new ideas Our targeted-basic research fuels NZ s innovation machine with novel discoveries - with Explorer Grants for transformational, high-risk research Horizons of research activity Develop emerging ideas We have a track record of supporting research over decades, resulting in new treatments for cancer & major breakthroughs for cardiovascular disease patients & the understanding of dementia Leverage proven ideas Our investment feeds MBIE s health innovations portfolio with knowledge & novel technologies for the global market, & adapts MBIE supported advance for direct applications in health. We work with health decision-makers on vital health technology

13 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 9 showing a commitment to ongoing improvement in public services and look for ways to improve how business is done and deliver value for taxpayers investment including making use of formal or self-review methodologies; Working closely with the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on implementation of the recommendations of the Strategic Refresh, ensuring that health research generates both significant health benefits and wider economic benefits for New Zealand, and on lifting the HRC s profile. Along with all Crown entities, we are also asked to focus on fiscal discipline, to demonstrate the difference that we make, and to shift resources if necessary to improve service delivery. We have worked very closely with MBIE and the Ministry of Health this year, assisting in the development of the New Zealand Health Research Strategy (NZHRS). Addressing the Recommendations of the Government s Strategic Refresh of the HRC In early 2015, the Ministry of Health, in conjunction with MBIE, undertook a strategic Refresh of the HRC. The resulting report, published in early 2016, provided us with some clear recommendations. Addressing them has been a strategic priority in the last year and will continue to focus our activities into 2017/18. Many of these recommendations were made explicit in the New Zealand Health Research Strategy, published in June 2017, in terms of the actions that the HRC is responsible for. We lead the work under Strategic Priority 1 Invest in excellent health research that addresses the health needs of all New Zealanders. The NZHRS has provided us with an excellent opportunity to look at what we do and how we fit within the health sector and science system, with a view to recognising what we are doing well and what we can do better. We have found the process very valuable and the input we have received, along with that from the consultation process for the NZHRS, will shape work going forward. In the 2016/17 Budget, we received a substantial increase that will see investment rise to $120m per annum by In 2016/17, our budget for allocation increased by $10m. These new funds have enabled us to fund some truly ground-breaking research and enter into more national collaborations that will advance the Government s goals for the health and disability sector. Details of these initiatives are provided throughout this report. The schematic on the following page details how HRC delivers to the New Zealand Health Strategy. The HRC has funded research of relevance to all of the themes, and continues to look for high-quality proposals that will address knowledge gaps, create new systems and tools, and contribute to best practice in these areas. HRC-funded research is also underpinning advances against the Government s Better Public Service Goals, in particular supporting vulnerable children by increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever. Health research benefits New Zealanders only if the findings are valued, taken up, and used. Increasing the utility and uptake of health research is an enduring priority for the HRC. In addition to our other measures to directly involve end-users in research, we provide a range of regular publications for our stakeholders in the research, policy, and Māori and Pacific communities, and are currently updating our information systems to provide the additional resource of an online database of HRC-funded research and research teams. Tackling the areas of greatest need The Ministry of Health produces a detailed analysis of the burden of disease in New Zealand in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) which integrate fatal and non-fatal impacts into a measure of health loss. 1 We aim to fund research in areas where the burden of disease is greatest and where the best opportunities lie for prevention and improving screening, diagnosis, and treatment. This includes research to mitigate changes in New Zealand s burden of disease profile as our population changes. 1 Ministry of Health Health Loss in New Zealand: A report from the New Zealand burden of diseases, Injuries and risk Factors Study, P12, Wellington: Ministry of Health.

14 10 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 How the HRC is delivering to the New Zealand Health Strategy People Powered We are: Reaching out to New Zealand public using innovative ways to increase understanding of what we do & levels of health research literacy Supporting development of public health interventions delivered through personal technology - such as mobile phones Raising the expectation that consumers will be involved in creating the research agenda, planning projects & disseminating the results Closer to home We are: Promoting a shared & co-ordinated research agenda across government agencies - through the National Health Research Strategy & through our Partnership Programme Working with the National Science Challenges to improve outcomes in long-term conditions Supporting the generation of a wealth of knowledge, diagnostics, predictive tools, interventions & treatments that will keep New Zealanders happy, healthy & living independently for longer Value & performance We are: Improving health services through working with stakeholders to ask the right questions, fill knowledge gaps, improve the quality, reach & parity of services, & generate an evidence-based culture to promote innovation & evaluation Directly plugging gaps in knowledge by providing a conduit between policy-makers & researchers through our Partnership Programme One Team We are: Fostering collaboration across research disciplines, institutions & government departments Principal funder of research on health systems, with a Research for New Zealand Health Delivery investment stream designed to bring researchers & stakeholders together as teams Smart system We are: Supporting the development of decision-support systems in primary care Resourcing the population of major research databases of risk factors for serious health conditions that can be used as a national & international resource Working with the Ministry of Health to undertake health technology assessment for fast, cost-effective implementation of innovations Collecting & sharing large amounts of data on New Zealand health research and the health research workforce All New Zealanders Live Well Stay Well

15 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 11 Leadership A core principle for the HRC is to provide leadership, signal clear direction, and ensure stability in the sector so that strong research platforms and areas of core capability can perform at their best and we work hard to ensure we are agile so we can effectively respond to emerging opportunities, proactively identify and target support to meet current and future priority health needs, and build capability where new evidence, skills, and approaches are needed. Getting the balance right is a constant and ongoing challenge one that involves continuous, incremental improvement. Continuous improvement in investment processes Gaining maximum impact for the taxpayer s research dollar Ensuring that research proposal assessment and contracting is equitable, free from conflict of interest, and addresses the areas of greatest need are critical to maintaining the trust and support of the health research community and forms a major part of our work. Assessment through the Annual Funding Round takes about 9 months in total, involves approximately 240 expert committee members, and a further specialist reviewers. Applications are assessed by expert peer-reviewers on scientific quality, the track record of the research team, and the potential for impact. The impact criterion assesses the extent to which the proposed research meets the goals of the Investment Signal, the degree of health and economic benefit, and the planned pathway to ensure uptake of results. Our investment processes are regularly reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose, efficient, and meet best-practice standards. Process upgrades range from implementing new grant types to improving application and assessment processes. Options for change are identified from sources both internal and external to the HRC. Managing organisational health and capability The HRC has a ten-member Board appointed by the Minister of Health with a range of expertise defined by the HRC Act Members of the Board Chair three of the HRC s four Statutory Committees (the Biomedical, Public Health and Māori Health Research Committees). The HRC has five Standing Committees: the Pacific Health Research Committee; the Grant Approval Committee; the Risk Management Committee; the Standing Committee on Therapeutic Trials (SCOTT); and the Gene Technology Advisory Committee (GTAC). The HRC s committees provide advice and recommendations on HRC policies and procedures and provide oversight of the peerreview processes used to assess research proposals and applications for careerdevelopment awards. The HRC team A strength of the HRC continues to be its highly skilled staff, many of whom have postgraduate qualifications and research experience. This provides credibility with research providers and helps HRC shape, in a practical way, its investment processes and policy development. The organisation is committed to enhancing and making best use of the skills and strengths available, engaging the HRC team in achieving organisational goals. The HRC will continue to use a transparent and impartial employment process to guarantee that there is no barrier to employing the best people for the job, and offer flexible working practices to attract and retain a quality workforce. The HRC is focused on acting with high standards of integrity, ensuring all outcomes are perceived as being fair, impartial, responsible, and trustworthy. We employ a comprehensive induction process, and organisational policies and procedures in order that all staff meet and deliver on the State Services Commission Standards of Integrity and Conduct. The HRC has a Conflicts of Interest Register for staff, in addition to the one that has always been kept for members of the HRC Board. The HRC team works closely with both the Board and the HRC s statutory and standing committees. Relationships between the HRC team, MoH, MBIE, and other funding agents are important. The Chief Executive and members

16 12 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 of the management team participate in regular and productive meetings with MoH and MBIE at which matters germane to the health research environment are discussed. Accountability to our Ministries No surprises from the HRC In addition to the specific reporting and accountability requirements, the Board, to the extent practicable, ensures that the Ministers are adequately warned in advance about any issue affecting the HRC that is likely to attract external attention or represent potential risk to the Government. Annual reports The HRC provides the following documents as part of our monitoring, reporting and accountability agreements: An Annual Report as per the Crown Entities Act 2004 requirements. The Statement of Intent as per the Crown Entities Act 2004 requirements. The Statement of Performance Expectations contains the annual forecast of performance and financial information as per the 2013 amendments to the Crown Entities Act A Data Information Report provided to MBIE, for the purpose of monitoring the performance of Vote Business, Science and Innovation s investment in research. 6-monthly and quarterly reports Exceptions-based, 6-monthly reports against the Statement of Performance Expectations and Output Agreements with the Ministry of Health (MoH), and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Other reports Investment Impact Report provided to MBIE and MoH every 3 years, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the investment made by the Council, and to provide advice on the future effectiveness of these investments. Scope of the HRC s functions and intended operations The framework for the HRC s work is provided by the Health Research Council Act The HRC undertakes two broad functions mandated by the Act. 1. Invest in high quality health research that will benefit New Zealand. The HRC issues contracts for research proposals that are aligned with the HRC s areas of strategic investment. The Universities of and Otago are the two major health research providers because of their scale and research strengths, but there is an increasing number of other organisations delivering health research supported by HRC. These include other universities, Crown Research Institutes, District Health Boards, independent research organisations, and a range of other public and private research providers. In 2016, more than 30 different organisations received HRC funding, ensuring that investment is directed to those best placed to conduct research in specific areas and apply research findings. The HRC uses a rigorous process of peer review to ensure that funding is transparent and fair, and guarantee that contracted research is of high quality. This best-practice model involves international peer-reviewers and expert committees comprising experienced New Zealand and Australian researchers. Scrupulous attention is paid to avoiding conflicts of interest during the process. Details of the HRC investment strategy and assessment processes are publicly available ( and funding decisions are ultimately made by the HRC Board. To ensure contracted research meets its objectives, funded researchers are required to report at least annually, and progress towards outcomes is reviewed. 2. Support the recruitment, retention, and training of the health research workforce. Workforce support is provided through a variety of mechanisms. Salaries of researchers are paid as part of health research contracts, and there are specific schemes which aim to engage and support frontline clinicians and promising emerging researchers. The HRC also

17 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 13 provides targeted career-building opportunities in areas where there is a demonstrable gap in capacity of the workforce, with the purpose of ensuring that New Zealand s health research sector is sustainable and can address the needs of our unique population. Equity Position From a financial perspective, the goal of the HRC is to ensure that all funds appropriated by Parliament to the HRC are fully utilised in health research. The HRC has reserves or Public Equity in its balance sheet totalling $12.9m at 30 June 2017 ($14.1m at 30 June 2016). This has occurred for two main reasons. 1. Research is unpredictable in terms of its execution and outcome. This drives changes in planned research timeframes. We have improved our modelling of financial commitments to better cope with the variability. 2. The HRC has ring-fenced funding for partnerships with other organisations. However, the rate at which research expenditure has taken place has not been as rapid as expected. We are currently reviewing our approach to partnership. The focus of the HRC Board and Management is to manage these reserves in a prudent fashion, ensuring they are invested in highquality research and therefore reduce as rapidly as possible. As at June 2017, the HRC has undertaken to provide grant funding to successful applicants in future years totalling some $259m (30 June 2016 $241m) subject only to parliamentary appropriated funds being made available and applicants successfully meeting the grant criteria (and ongoing contractual requirements once the grant has been awarded). The funding of these undertakings will come from existing funding streams and the recently announced increase in funding for the HRC of $97m over 4 years from June In addition, the HRC Board and Management have developed a strategy which will see reserves reduce to around $3.0m by June This will be done by: the implementation of a new research contract that will enable better reporting on impact and research progress to the HRC; education of the research community about the importance of timely execution of contracts and good communication; a redirection of reserves from the Partnership Programme into the HRC s Annual Funding Round; short-term increases in the numbers of approved applications through the HRC s Annual Funding Round; and more timely and efficient contracting processes.

18

19 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 15 Part 2. Progress against outcomes and strategic intentions How we have built our performance story New Zealanders highly value health research for its contribution to the health of our people and our nation. 2 Health research underpins improvements in health outcomes and productivity; increases the quality and costeffectiveness of healthcare delivery; and produces innovations that have commercial value. Yet it is extremely difficult to quantify the impact of health research in a reliable and meaningful way. Human health is affected by so many different and diverse factors that it is impossible to isolate health research discoveries and attribute observed improvements to research alone. Capturing the breadth and diversity of health research outcomes is challenging. To address this, we have developed an outcome framework for our Operating Intentions through which we can show our overall progress towards the outcomes we are trying to achieve. Many of our traditional performance indicators are output, rather than outcome, measures. We have clustered them in such a way that each group collectively provides a surrogate measure of our progress towards meeting our goals. We provide case studies throughout the report that highlight outcome achievement in a more meaningful and tangible way than simply quantifying outputs. Under each outcome, we have identified key impacts that we will track through our annual and medium-term key performance indicators (KPIs). We have given as much context around the measures chosen, and the levels that we expect to achieve, as practicable. Some of this discussion centres on the balance of our investments and what is the ideal mix. There is no right answer, and there will always be trade-offs between desirable outcomes as we continue to refine our indicators and track our progress towards meeting our goals. We have set targets that will challenge us but which are achievable within the funding levels currently available. We have only set incremental targets in areas that we expect to change because of initiatives that we already have in place, or that we can influence through expectations set through our investment tools. The HRC's outcome framework The schematic overleaf shows the HRC's Outcome Framework, and provides the structure for reporting our medium-term information and annual performance. The HRC has identified four outcomes it seeks to contribute to or influence in the medium-term. The four outcomes are: new knowledge, solutions, and innovations for health are created; the healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation; the best clinicians and health researchers are attracted, supported, and retained in New Zealand; and the impact, responsiveness, and uptake of health research is increased. Our four Research Investment Streams (RIS) are the mechanism through which we communicate New Zealand s health research needs to the community. The RIS cover the entire spectrum of health research activity in New Zealand. Our funding framework is designed to capture bright, innovative ideas of high quality that will make both a national and international impact. Through the streams, we prioritise research translation and uptake, with a strong focus on our at-risk populations and the areas of greatest need. There is a different emphasis in each stream the key points of difference and the links between the RIS and our outcome framework are summarised in Appendix 3. 2 New Zealand speaks! New Zealanders for Health Research Opinion Poll 2017.

20 16 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17

21 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 17 Our KPIs for Impact 1: Outcome 1: New knowledge, New Zealanders benefit from the HRC s focus on solutions, and innovations improve prevention research health Why is this important? This outcome is about gaining the knowledge needed to keep people well, combat disease, and create new tools to help us do this. Health research has brought about such a knowledge revolution that it is easy to forget how complex the human body is, and how much of how it functions in health and disease is still poorly understood. We urgently need this knowledge to generate new approaches and treatment strategies. We need to know how our evolving environment, technologies, and lifestyle impact on our physical and mental wellbeing and develop effective prevention strategies. We need to harness unprecedented technological advances that can revolutionise the way that healthcare is delivered. If we are successful in meeting this outcome, we will ultimately contribute to the economy through the creation of new medical technologies and a healthier, more productive population. Annual Performance indicator Number of public-health intervention contracts tracked by the HRC Target It is important that we identify and track interventions so that we can follow-up after each contract is completed to see what impact they have had 2016/17 20 Actual 2016/17 22 Exceeded Trend Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/17 Impact 1: A strong research focus on keeping New Zealanders healthy and productive One hundred percent of the research we fund contributes to our economic goal of supporting a healthy and productive New Zealand. To do this we focus a significant proportion of our funds on addressing New Zealand s top five health risk factors smoking, diet/obesity, physical inactivity, and high blood pressure. These risk factors account for about 40 percent of the DALYs lost in New Zealand.3 A summary of some of the things that our researchers have managed to achieve in the area of tobacco control is on the next page. In 2014, we set a goal that at least one publichealth intervention developed with our funds would have been rolled out to multiple centres by In fact, seven of the fourteen that have been assessed at two years have been rolled out in some way. One of the most successful is the SPARX e-therapy intervention a fantasy game. GBD Profile: New Zealand. 3 8 are active contracts, 5 have been surveyed 2 years post-completion, and 7 are being surveyed in This has given us valuable data to gauge the impact of our interventions / / / / /16 Mediumterm Target 2016/17 1 Actual 2016/17 7 Exceeded Performance indicator A public-health intervention is implemented across multiple centres as a result of HRC-funded research Prior to setting these two measures, we had no way of knowing what happens with interventions after the contractual reporting period. We needed to know if they are making a real difference 50% of the public-health interventions that we have followed-up have resulted in some form of roll-out (see text and infographics)

22 18 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17

23 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 19 How we ve been fighting a Kiwi killer... The Tūranga Tobacco Control Research Programme Over 10 years the percentage of Kiwis who smoke has dropped by a fifth Over the past 10 years, we ve invested over $33m in evidence and tools to help people to stop smoking Statistics New Zealand 2017 Estimated health & disability costs to New Zealand in 2009: $1.9 billion Ministry of Health, 2009 *The Tūranga Tobacco Control Research Programme was led by Professor Chris Bullen,. Some big wins from investment The highest quit rates yet seen in a New Zealand intervention 25% at 3 months. The WERO group stop smoking programme allowed groups of Māori and Pacific smokers to compete for a prize for the charity of their choice a website allowed them to visualise progress. It was then funded as a national programme by the Ministry of Health for 3 years until mid The same model is now being used to tackle obesity in Māori. A change in Government policy reducing the number of duty free cigarettes that can be brought in to New Zealand from overseas. A novel computer-generated 3D fetus that shows the impacts of mother s smoking during pregnancy, and the benefits on baby s growth if she stops. Some great ideas for the future Using all the data gathered from 500,000 quit attempts on The Quit Line, to create a model that will help future quitters Understanding the risks as well as potential benefits of electronic cigarettes Rapid, needle-free delivery of nicotine for smoking cessation therapy Taking nicotine out of tobacco a very low nicotinecontent cigarette policy in New Zealand Introducing e-cigarettes in clinical practice for smokers with multiple addictions

24 20 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Other successful interventions include: Reducing the influence of ethnicity and comorbidity on cancer survival between Māori and non-māori. This included training of 19 cancer-care providers on the importance of co-morbidity in survival. ISAFE an Internet-based intervention to improve mental health outcomes for abused women. The ISAFE team joined with the NZ Police to develop and pilottest a prototype of the online ISAFE decision aid. An intervention for prevention of overweight in infancy led to the publication of childhood obesity guidelines by the Ministry of Health, and insufficient sleep being officially recognised as an important contributing factor. Our KPIs for Impact 2: Cross-pollination of innovative research between HRC and MBIE Annual Performance indicator Percentage of new HRC contracts focused on discovery/development for improved detection, screening, diagnosis, and treatment Target HRC investment in innovative biomedical research leads to new products, diagnostics, and treatments that MBIE can take through to the development phase 2016/17 18% Actual 2016/17 Impact 2: Innovative technologies and therapies develop We see a key part of our role as supporting the discoveries that feed New Zealand s innovation pipeline. In 2011, we set ourselves measures that would help us to track that this is happening. First, we tracked our investment to ensure that we re funding innovative biomedical research, and then we worked with MBIE to analyse the health-related research contracts that they have funded since 2011/12. The results exceeded our expectations, and show a strong link between HRC investment and MBIE s innovation and commercialisation research portfolio. We also found that health research funded through the National Science Challenges was largely built on a platform of HRC investment (see the summary on the next page), and Callaghan Innovation is now reaping the benefit of nearly 20 years of HRC support for the development of vaccines and diagnostic tools for cancer. A great example of the strong synergies between the investment of the two agencies is the work of Professor Simon Malpas. His work on the physiology of hypertension using animal models meant that he had to develop technology to monitor the vital signs of animals whilst they were roaming. This wireless, implantable technology was developed for other uses with funding from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and then picked up again when Professor Malpas and the team developed it 34% A third of our 59 new contracts in 2016/17 were focused on discovery/ development in this area. We are pleased with this result which shows a strong investment in the innovation space this year Exceeded Trend 46% 33% 18% 22% 21% 2011/ / / / /16 Mediumterm Target 2016/17 8 Actual 2016/17 15 Exceeded Performance indicator 8 MBIE contracts underpinned by HRC-funded research since 2011/2012 A key role for the HRC is to generate the discoveries that power MBIE s commercialisation machine. We set an ambitious target in the hope of showing that we are playing a key role in this regard We identified 15 MBIE contracts since 2011 that were underpinned by HRC funding (see text). This does not include the research MBIE funds through the health-related National Science Challenges (see text)

25 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 21 further to create implantable wireless heart pumps for patients which will revolutionise the field. Another great example of innovative technology that was developed with HRC funding and announced in 2016/17 is the launch of the Avalia Immunotherapies company. Avalia was launched to commercialise cancer treatments developed with over 20 years of HRC support of Professor Graham Le Gros and his team at the Malaghan Institute. The team first learned how to harness the body s own immune cells to

26 22 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 attack cancer cells and developed New Zealand s first successful cancer vaccine. This showed considerable promise in reducing tumours, but not all individuals responded to the treatment completely. The team discovered that a competing group of immune cells in the body designed to prevent autoimmune diseases from developing were blocking the body s increased immune response to the cancer vaccine. Next, they tested the vaccine with a treatment that reduced the number of these competing immune cells and achieved the hoped-for improvement in response. The company will focus on translating these advances into drugs that can be tested in patients in the next two years. Our KPIs for Impact 3: HRC-funded researchers maintain a high international profile Triennial measure Target 2017/18 6 Actual Performance indicator Average citations per publication for HRC-funded research This indicator is derived from a study of all NZ health research publications indexed by the Web of Science. Due to the expense of the data, it is set as a triennial measure. Not due to be measured until 2017/18. Impact 3: New Zealand contributes to national and international advances 2016/17 n/a In 2015, we produced a study of New Zealand publications in health research that was very valuable in illustrating the international impact of HRC-funded research. It showed that HRC-funded research was making a particularly strong international contribution in the areas of Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine, Immunology, Genetics, and Clinical Sciences. None of the other research funding sectors we looked at performed anywhere near as strongly in these areas, in terms of New Zealand publications. Here are three examples of HRC-funded discoveries in publications that were ranked in the top 1 2% world-wide in their field in the year that they were published meaning that they had a major influence around the globe. Fat is not just the body s storage locker it secretes proteins that affect our metabolism. Adiponectin is one of these proteins, and protects us against heart disease and diabetes. Testosterone blocks the action of adiponectin. Now we have some insight into why men have higher rates of these conditions than women, and can start addressing it. (Research team lead by Professor Garth Cooper, University of, with international collaborators) Mediumterm Target 2016/17 30% Actual 2016/17 44% > than world average 20% > than University sector Met for world average only Performance indicator Average number of citations per HRC-funded publication exceeds the world average and the average for other NZ university-based health research by at least 30% (55% in 2001/02) This measure of citations per publication (cpp) relates to the bibliometric study completed in The target was set on the basis of the previous study. We used baseline bibliometric data to estimate the difference in citations per publication for HRCfunded publications and those supported by the University sector alone. The data demonstrate an increase in quality from the University sector on what was predicted, and the HRC has maintained our strong performance, at 44% higher than the world average. This combined result is good for NZ health research overall.

27 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 23 One version of a single gene puts adolescents that use cannabis at risk of serious mental illness as adults including psychosis and schizophrenia. This major breakthrough boosted global understanding of gene environment interactions and the risks of adolescent drug use. (Research team lead by Professor Richie Poulton, The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Study, ) Preterm babies are often given steroids to help their lungs develop a potentially lifesaving treatment. Worries arose that this may put them at risk of cardiovascular disease in later life. We invested in proving that this treatment was safe, by funding research that showed no increase in risk 30 years on, compared to those who did not have the treatment. This has informed treatment guidelines for preterm infants all over the world. (Research team lead by Professor Jane Harding, University of ) Outcomes from the last five years of investment include research looking at the needs of children born very preterm, which for the first time linked abnormalities in developing brain tissues with social challenges which these children face when entering school including fewer friendships, fewer face-to-face interactions, and increased rates of victimisation and bullying. The more preterm the child, the greater the risk of these social challenges. The team then developed a tool to determine the likelihood that these children will develop serious learning difficulties in their first 4 years of school, so that the proper support can be put in place before serious problems occur. (Research team lead by Professor Lianne Woodward, Canterbury) In Alzheimer s disease, damage occurs when cholinergic cells in the brain are injured, causing devastating loss of memories. The cholinergic cells produce acetylcholine the hormone that serves as the body s primary transmitter of nerve impulses. The female hormone oestrogen can protect these cells, but there are too many adverse effects to give oestrogen as a treatment. An HRC-backed team has found that synthetic oestrogens (ANGELS) are also protective, but without unwanted side-effects. These findings are being used to develop new therapies to treat Alzheimer s disease, and have made a major contribution to the global research community developing therapies for the disease. (Research team lead by Professor Istvan Abraham and Dr Andrea Kwakowsky )

28 24 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Outcome 2: The healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation Why is this important? Health research has a critical role in ensuring that our healthcare services are informed and of the highest quality. We know that the quality of healthcare and healthcare delivery is largely determined by the extent to which they are underpinned by research evidence. We also know that providing clinicians with the opportunity to engage in research has a positive impact on their practice, and that being a research-active country means that New Zealanders have early access to worldwide medical advances (new treatments, technologies, and innovations). Health research also has a key part to play in improving the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of our healthcare system a role that is becoming increasingly important in light of our ageing population and the escalation of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/17 Impact 1: Research that improves the quality, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of New Zealand s health system is prioritised We have two funding vehicles that are specifically designed to meet this objective. The first is our New Zealand Health Delivery (NZHD) Research Investment Stream (RIS). Research that is funded through this RIS must have a positive impact within five years of the contract commencing, and the scope is limited to innovations in health-service delivery, disease prevention, and treatments. The second is Research Partnerships for New Zealand Delivery (RPNZHD, which we run as part of our Partnership Programme. Applicants must directly partner with service providers, securing co-investment and buy-in for their research, and increasing the likelihood that their findings will be taken up and used. Our KPIs for Impact 1: Research that improves the quality, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of New Zealand s health system is prioritised Annual Performance indicator Percentage of the HRC s annual investment under NZHD and RPNZHD Target We want to grow the investment in high-quality research that makes an immediate contribution to our health system through these tools 2016/17 13% Actual 2016/17 9% Not met This is a key indicator for us, because these contracts impact on health and/or service delivery within five years of funding commencing. We have previously been unable to meet our target because of the sector s inability to respond, and the same issues have occurred this year. We will be looking at additional approaches to increase investment. Trend 20% 10% 11% 13% 9% 2011/ / / / /16 Mediumterm Performance indicator HRC-funded research contributes to improved clinical practice, decisionmaking and healthcare policy in New Zealand Target 10 new clinical guidelines or policies based on HRC-funded research since 2010/ /17 10 Actual 2016/17 43 Exceeded HRC investment has made a strong contribution to evidence-based policy and practice in New Zealand.

29 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 25

30 26 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 This is best illustrated by New Zealand s top intensive care specialists. The HRC has supported national networks of intensive care physicians to link nationally to produce critical care guidelines and internationally to generate the data needed to answer vital questions about the care of patients who require life support. Major national and international collaborations with the HRC s critical care researchers have led to major cost-savings for health services in recent years, both in New Zealand and internationally. The work focuses on answering questions that specialists have been struggling with for years, because no hard data exists on which to make a decision. On the basis of this work, they have reduced the use of costly intravenous rehydration therapy in the ICU, that actually worsened patient outcomes saving District Health Boards millions of dollars annually. Impact 2: Actively involve end-users, health-managers, and decisionmakers in research The HRC supports a number of very senior clinical researchers with the networks, experience and mana to influence outcomes with their research findings. One such researcher is Professor Jane Harding. Professor Harding is a specialist in the care of newborns, as well as being a senior academic at the s Liggin s Institute. Over two decades we have supported Professor Harding to study preterm birth and infant health. A body of her more recent work is addressing verylow blood-sugar (hypoglycaemia) in newborns. It serves to illustrate how sustained investment in clinical research can make a major difference in the treatment and outcomes for our most vulnerable citizens, and reduce the immediate and longer-term costs of care for health services. Professor Harding and her team have set robust guidelines for the treatment of high blood-sugar in infants, showing that a simple $2 application of a glucose gel can safely reverse it with no adverse effects on the baby s ability to breast-feed. They are gaining valuable knowledge about the consequences of both under-treated and over-corrected low glucose levels in newborns, showing just how susceptible to damage the brains of new babies are. Our KPIs for Impact 2: Actively involve end-users, health-managers, and decision-makers in research Annual Performance indicator Percentage of current contracts with a named investigator based at a DHB or PHO Target We specifically want to increase the level of research activity at DHBs and PHOs, and need to know how many of our research contracts provide research opportunities for front-line staff 2016/17 20% We have exceeded our target with over half our contracts involving a practising clinician. Research that involves a team member who is involved in health delivery are more likely to be taken up and used, and so we are very pleased with this result. Actual 2016/17 58% Trend 23% 2012/13 Mediumterm Target 48% 52% 2014/ /16 34% 2013/14 Performance indicator HRC engages with the health sector to deliver solutions 35% of new contracts are led by a principal investigator engaged in health delivery (33% in 2013/14) 2016/17 35% Actual 2016/17 28% Not Met This result is lower than we had hoped. It likely reflects the difficulty that practising clinicians have in finding the time to undertake clinical research, and especially lead a clinical research project. Many clinicians do not have access to research leave, and must find the time on top of their clinical duties. Leading a contract is particularly demanding we have exceeded our target for the number of contracts that involve a practising clinician. Creating a clinical environment conducive to health research is an issue that is being addressed by the New Zealand Health Research Strategy. The Ministry of Health is leading the action to strengthen the clinical research sector and address barriers.

31 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 27 Impact 3: Innovative health technologies and therapies develop We tend to associate the development of new technologies with major investment, but it is incredible what can be achieved just with an HRC Māori Health Masters Scholarship. For his Masters degree at the Waikato, Mahonri Owen developed a prosthetic hand that can be completely controlled by the brain, using computer-aided design, 3D printing, and cotton from his mother s sewing machine. The picture below shows Clive illustrating his invention to Duncan Garner on Story showing how it can be made to move just by thinking. Mahonri Owen demonstrates his prosthetic hand to Duncan Garner on Story What if we could revolutionise the treatment of Parkinson s disease? Professor John Reynolds ( Otago) has shown that this is only a matter of time. He used his HRC Explorer Grant to develop a means to restore movement in Parkinson s disease (manifested by the brain s inability to produce sufficient dopamine). His team developed a technology to mimic natural pulses of dopamine, using drugs released from a tiny bubble that is made of the same material as a cell membrane (liposomes). The current mainstay of therapy is L-DOPA, which has significant and debilitating side-effects. It can lead to abnormal movements in many people taking it, within five years. Dopamine therapy can also lead to problem behaviour, with some even developing problem gambling. This new system holds the promise of lifelong treatment for Parkinson s disease without these sideeffects, because dopamine replacement can be customised to mimic the natural dopamine signal in targeted brain areas using ultrasound signals through the skull. The work is ongoing, but the grant showed proof of principle, and the team have taken out patents on the liposome-controller technology. Another exciting project came from the HRC s joint initiative with the National Health Committee the Health Innovations Partnership. Dr Elizabeth Broadbent and her team looked at whether robots could enhance care for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The study ran at Counties Manukau DHB, Southland DHB, and Gore Health. Sixty participants received either standard care, or standard care plus a robot. The robot was programmed to provide medication management, telemedicine, monitoring of blood pressure, blood oxygen, and COPD questionnaires, and to be linked to Smart inhaler devices to monitor adherence. Health professionals could see if medication use increased, and phone patients. The findings are being prepared for publication, but the team hope that using the robot will reduce hospital admissions and bed-care days compared to standard care. They also hope that the robot will improve mental health and adherence to treatment regimens, since those patients who worked with the robot reported feeling less lonely. At a cost of $3000 each, the robots do not come cheap, but are still half the cost of a COPD admission, for which New Zealand has the highest rate in the OECD. No-one wants to have an injection into their eyeball, and yet for many people with degenerative eye diseases, this is what has to happen several times a year. The HRC invested in some pivotal research by Dr Ilva Rupenthal that provides a means of delivering drugs inside the eye without a needle. Working with a team of clinicians, she developed eye implants that release drugs slowly, in response to light. These implants can greatly improve quality of life for patients living with common problems such as macular degeneration. They will also reduce the cost of treatment and demand on already overstretched services. Ilva was the recipient of both an HRC Emerging Research First Grant and a Sir Charles Hercus Research. In 2016, the HRC recognised Ilva s contribution with a Celebrating Research Excellence Award, for her outstanding contribution to health research excellence as an emerging researcher.

32 28 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Our KPIs for Impact 3: Innovative health technologies and therapies develop Annual Target 2016/17 Performance indicator Percentage of new contracts focused on clinical application of innovations for improved prevention, detection, screening, diagnosis, or treatment. This measure was designed to monitor the level of HRC support for applied health technologies and help us to better track their development and impact. Our target is for one-fifth of new contracts to be in this area, and to maintain this level. 20% Actual 2016/17 15% Not met We have not met our target in this area, despite this being a major focus of our New Zealand Health Delivery RIS. This is partly because we had a large number of excellent proposals in the discovery area this year, research that will hopefully provide the applied health technologies for the future. This is the problem we face when setting performance measures based on proportion of the investment. We want to track our expenditure and balance our investment, and we have addressed this in our performance measures going forward. 19% Trend 12% 4% 10% 5% 2011/ / / / /16 Annual Target 2016/17 12% Performance indicator Percentage of new contracts focused on innovative clinical decision-making tools and models of care This measure was designed to monitor the extent to which research is being used to test and implement systems for streamlined, efficient management of health conditions at the patient or organisational level. We aim to increase the rate at which we grow clinical research capacity and planned investment in cofunding relationships Actual 2016/17 7% Not met Trend The same issues described for the previous target also apply to this one. It is also important to note that when a large increase in investment is announced, it can affect the balance of proposals received, with some disciplines reacting more quickly to take advantage of the increase in funds with new projects. More applied research can often require a greater degree of consultation and collaboration, and so take longer to develop. As a result, the increase in quality proposals in this area may lag behind that of less applied projects in response to new funds. Varying levels of capacity in the workforce also affect the response to new funds. 12% 17% 2% 4% 10% 2011/ / / / /16

33 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 29 Mediumterm Target 2016/17 1 Actual 2016/17 64 health technologies 26 Clinical innovations Exceeded Performance indicator HRC-research underpins the creation of new health technologies and innovations One new health technology and three new clinical innovations/decisionmaking tools arise from HRC-funded research This result far exceeds the targets that we set for clinical innovations and health technologies from 2011/12 until 2016/17. It gives us confidence that over the medium-term, we have made a significant difference under this impact, despite not meeting our annual targets this year.

34 30 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Outcome 3: The best clinicians and health researchers are supported and retained in NZ Why is this important? A strong health research sector depends on a highly-skilled, experienced workforce which can deliver quality research and drive innovation. By targeting support to front-line clinicians and the most promising emerging researchers in priority health areas, we ensure that the research workforce has the capacity to meet the needs of the healthcare system and our unique population, both now and into the future. Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/17 Impact 1: Supporting promising emerging researchers to gain valuable research expertise We place a strong emphasis on supporting emerging research talent. We were delighted to fund a third of applications for our Emerging Researcher First Grant in the 2016/17 funding round providing a boost for 14 promising individuals to start their careers (see Output 2). Fostering future research leaders is also a key priority for us with the prestigious Sir Charles Hercus Research an important tool for achieving this. Associate Professor Chris Pemberton of the Christchurch Cardioendocrine Research Group () received the in Since then he has gone on to win two Programme contracts, one Programme Extension, and four Project grants. He is part of a team that has made major breakthroughs in the understanding and treatment of heart failure and heart disease, identifying biological markers of heart injury that can be used for early diagnosis in the clinical setting (the topic of his ). Our annual survey of 26 former Fellows showed that all of them had at least one further HRC contract and one had as many as 22, indicating that we have met our goal of picking those that will be competitive in future future funding rounds. All our former Fellows have remained active in New Zealand health research, another positive Our KPIs for Impact 1: Supporting promising emerging researchers to gain valuable research expertise Annual Target 2016/17 58% Actual 2016/17 73% Exceeded Trend 56% Mediumterm Target 2016/17 100% Actual 2016/17 100% Met Performance indicator Percentage of former Sir Charles Hercus recipients named on current HRC contracts This fellowship is aimed at identifying future research leaders, and is a prestigious award. If we have identified them well, they should be able to compete in HRC rounds once their contract is completed This result gives us confidence that we are picking the right individuals to develop as future leaders. Clearly these individuals are either leading a highly competitive team or remain involved in one. This is vital for succession planning. 71% 57% 69% 2012/ / / /16 Performance indicator The HRC nurtures new talent 100% of former Sir Charles Hercus recipients retained in research Again, if we have indeed picked future research leaders for this award, the majority will remain active in the research sector Every former recipient of this award is still active within the research sector, contributing to endeavours and advancing their research careers

35 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 31 sign that we have picked future research leaders who will be able to step forward when our current leaders are ready to retire. Ensuring that clinicians have access to formal research training opportunities is one of the ways we ensure they are engaged in health research. This improves the quality and efficiency of treatment and services, but it also improves career satisfaction and advancement. This is key to keeping the best clinicians in New Zealand healthcare. Our Clinical Researcher s and our Clinical Practitioner s are two of the tools we use to do this. These individuals are at the front-line of services and the projects they have chosen to pursue have a significant impact on service delivery (see infographic).

36 32 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Impact 2: New Zealand has the capacity to address the needs of our unique population Over the past 20 years we have focused on building the Māori health research workforce to create the capacity and capability needed to address indigenous health issues. Our models have been recognised internationally and we have greatly increased the number of Māori health researchers that we fund and train. One of our goals is to create the means for Māori researchers to progress their research careers by offering varied opportunities along the career spectrum (see the schematic of the awards we offer under Output 2). However, until this year, we had no data on whether we were actually creating career pathways, or just isolated opportunities that were not being taken up in a consistent way. In 2017, we undertook a major survey of all previous Māori recipients of HRC career-development awards. Here s what we found. Analysis of recipients of HRC Māori Career Development Awards (CDAs) since 2008 Our KPIs for Impact 2: New Zealand has the capacity to address the needs of our unique population Annual Performance indicator Percentage of named researchers on HRC contracts who identify as Māori Target Through investing in a broad range of Māori research opportunities, including career development contracts, community research contracts, projects, and programmes, we have sought to reach our mediumterm goal for the composition of the Māori workforce by /17 13% Actual 2016/17 13% Met We have maintained the proportion of the workforce that identify as Māori, but we have not managed to increase it. Perhaps this is because we have had an increase in funding in the last financial year, and more non-māori researchers have been poised to take advantage of that. Trend 217 Total number of Māori recipients of an HRC CDA 58% Progressed their career with an HRC-funded opportunity in the past 5 years 85% Have had more than one HRC* funded research opportunity 7 28% 64 Went through all of the levels available and were successful in the annual funding round 17% 2012/13 Mediumterm Target Were successful in gaining Project/Programme or IRO funding Received the award in the past 5 years, and so have not really had time to progress 2016/17 Actual * Excluding individuals that only received a Summer Studentship Award 2016/17 Met 12% 12% 13% 2013/ / /16 Performance indicator The HRC supports Māori to develop the workforce and skills needed to address indigenous health issues Percentage of Māori on current contracts: Senior researchers (with PhD): 18% Emerging researchers: 18% Principal investigators: 25% Senior researchers (with PhD): 26% Emerging researchers: 29% Principal investigators: 35% We have met our targets for composition of the Māori workforce

37 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 33 We are also working hard to build Pacific health research capacity, although this has proved more challenging and is an area of increasing focus for the HRC. In this regard, we were pleased to support five Pacific health research projects through the 2017 Annual Funding Round, and the highest number of proposals led by Pacific investigators for many years. Alana, who is of Samoan and Cook Island descent on her mother s side and Irish descent on her father s side, received an HRC Pacific Health Research PhD Scholarship in With the help of this scholarship she, along with her supervisor Professor Winston Byblow, have been investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) on the excitability of motor pathways from the brain to the arm. This technique induces a weak direct current to the brain via electrodes placed over a person s scalp. This can stimulate the brain to adapt to the injury and transfer functions to an undamaged part of the brain. However, the technique is not one size fits all, so Alana has been working on ways to optimise the brainstimulation parameters to achieve the best effect for a particular individual. Alana McCambridge was supported by the HRC to do her PhD at the. Her research aims to help patients to rehabilitate after a stroke. She studies a novel, non-invasive brain-stimulation technique that shows promise for patients with impaired arm co-ordination and control following strokes.

38 34 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness, and uptake of health research is increased Why is this important? It is important that New Zealand derives health, social and economic gains from our investment in health research. The HRC strives to maximise the benefit and add further value by: focusing the research effort in areas of specific priority, strength and opportunity; developing mechanisms and running processes that ensure the relevance, responsiveness, and quality of the research we fund; working across sectors to develop health research and ensure New Zealand s investment meets sector needs and represents best value; partnering with our stakeholders to deliver the evidence needed for policy and practice and to leverage benefit; working to improve the relevance, impact, translation, and uptake of health research; and being effective, efficient, and accountable in what we do. Our key impacts and performance indicators for 2016/17 Impact 1: The health research funding environment is transparent, fair, and ensures quality research For a small country, New Zealand has a very broad and diverse array of funding bodies involved in health. With finite public resources, it is important to create linkages and foster relationships to ensure that scarce resources are used well and investment is not duplicated. The HRC works across the health and science and innovation sectors to deliver investment and support in agreed priority areas, and has maintained strong stakeholder engagement and support. Productive partnerships with the Ministry of Health and MBIE are critical to our success. In the past year, MBIE, MoH, and the HRC have been working very closely together, developing shared data systems, discussing better alignment of funding tools, and reducing transaction costs for the research community. The development of the New Zealand Health Research Strategy aids this work by giving each agency a strong area of focus. The HRC must focus on providing leadership and supporting excellent health research and a strong research workforce; The Ministry of Health on making health providers research ready for the results that are generated and strengthening the clinical research sector; and MBIE on underpinning the whole endeavour by ensuring that the infrastructure, processes, and resources are there to sustain New Zealand health research endeavours and maximise the national and global contributions to knowledge and innovations that improve health. Transparent and fair processes that identify excellent research We run fair, transparent, and robust peerreview processes that meet international standards for best practice. Health research funding in New Zealand is highly competitive, and our processes, which use around 700 national and international reviewers, ensure that we fund research that is of high quality, and support researchers who have the capability to deliver (see the results of the internal review of our processes, conducted by Deloittes on p41). The strong contribution that the HRC makes to ensuring that the research environment is ethical, safe, and fair is detailed in Output 4, p50. None of our research contracts can commence without ethical approval from an ethics committee accredited by the HRC. The results of our bibliometric evaluation emphatically tell us that we are funding the best. Perhaps one of the clearest indicators that we are also funding the highest priority research is the fact that 65 percent of our research contracts align with one or more of the Government s National Science Challenges research areas identified by New Zealand as critical to our current and future needs and success. Addressing the greatest research needs HRC s primary objective is to invest in the health research that matters to New Zealand and makes the biggest difference to our health and wellbeing. To do this we need an investment framework that encourages research of the highest relevance, and we need investment processes that are robust and identify research of the highest quality.

39 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 35 Research that contributes directly to improved health outcomes and improved health equity for those with the greatest need is prioritised across all four of the HRC s Research Investment Streams. Additionally, the introduction in 2009 of an assessment criterion which scores the likelihood of research to make an impact ensures the research we fund is focused on, and likely to attain, improved health outcomes for New Zealanders. We review all our investments for responsiveness to Māori, and this will become a part of the assessment process that is formally scored in the coming year (incorporating different levels and facets of responsiveness, appropriate to the nature and level of the research). Promoting translation of research findings Health research only benefits New Zealanders if the findings are valued, taken up, and used. The HRC is working to improve the impact, translation, and uptake of health research. This work includes an in-depth review of the assessment of impact in our funding processes and the pathways to achieving it. (We introduced an impact criterion in 2009, but this has not proved as effective as we hoped.) The results will lead to a change in the way we assess applications. By making knowledge transfer an acknowledged and important part of research that is formally assessed, we are encouraging and incentivising researchers to look beyond the outputs of their work and understand specific areas where they can proactively help in the dissemination and, where appropriate, the implementation of their results. We also award two science medals on an annual basis which recognise, encourage and promote research translation. We are currently in the process of developing a completely new website that is designed to increase engagement with the end-users of the knowledge that we generate, engaging them in the process of influencing the research agenda, participating in research, and promoting uptake of the findings. This will be launched in early Engaging with communities Addressing New Zealand s greatest health challenges means engaging and working with communities. Engaging communities and endusers is therefore a key priority for the HRC. Our KPIs for Impact 1: The health research environment is transparent, fair, and ensures quality research Annual Target 2016/17 No appeals Actual 2016/17 No appeals Met Performance indicator Number of appeals for reconsideration of an HRC funding decision by the Council This is a surrogate measure of the trust and confidence HRC applicants have in an assessment process that is based upon the review of their peers. Despite a historically low success rate, the HRC Board has not been asked to reconsider any funding decisions. We attribute this to a transparent approach to working through complaints resulting in no applicants lodging a formal appeal Trend There have been no appeals against HRC funding decisions since the measure was set in 2010/11 Mediumterm Target 2016/17 0 Actual 2016/17 0 Met Performance indicator HRC continues to attract the number and quality of experts needed to run a bestpractice, peer-reviewed funding process Zero appeals against HRC funding decisions during the period There have been no appeals during the period of this report (see Trend line above)

40 36 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 We support iwi, hapū, and Māori communities to address community-identified health needs through a specific funding opportunity Nḡa Kanohi Kitea the purpose of which is to develop the capacity of communities to engage in research in order to better address their health needs. All HRC applicants are encouraged to engage stakeholders and end-users from the outset of the research, while some research funding opportunities require our researchers to work in collaboration with health-service providers and decision-makers. Impact 2: Strategic partnerships engage end-users, leverage benefit, and improve research uptake We achieve the greatest impact, value, and benefit when we work with others. The HRC regularly partners to meet sector needs. In recent years, we have had over 30 partners spanning healthcare providers such as DHBs, government ministries, charities, and nongovernment organisations. Highlights of our current partnership investment include working with the Ministry of Health and Healthier Lives National Science Challenge to support three projects, and our new partnership with PHARMAC (see Output 3 for more details, p47). Over the past 15 years, we have developed important and valuable relationships with research providers (from universities to charitable trusts), healthcare organisations (including all 20 DHBs), professional and regulatory bodies (such as PHARMAC), the Health and Disability Ethics Committees, NZBIO, Medsafe, local bodies and councils, and public and private enterprises (such as the Crown Research Institutes and the commercialisation arms of the universities). By working in partnership, the HRC is currently leveraging an additional $1.22 for every dollar we invest. Although in previous years we have leveraged three times this amount ($3.91 in 2014/15), this is still a good result. Department budgets have been tight in recent funding cycles, with research being the first activity that is cut back. We have also put a hold on new ventures in the past year, pending the results of a review. We have been fortunate to work with a large number of partners since 2002, but we now need to take time to build strategic oversight into the funding process to make sure that we are Our KPIs for Impact 2: Strategic partnerships engage end-users, leverage benefit, and improve research uptake Annual Target 2016/17 Performance indicator Number of active research partnerships with end-users and providers Through this measure, we monitor the HRC s level of engagement in strategic partnerships that involve end-users and respond to their needs. 40 Actual 2016/17 18 Not met We have been reviewing the Partnership Programme in 2016/17 and have decided not to commit to new partnerships until the strategic review is complete. A smaller number of larger, more strategic partnerships is what we will work to establish going forward. Trend / / / / / /16 Annual Performance indicator Dollar value of co-funding leveraged through the Partnership Programme Target We have been reviewing the Partnership Programme in 2016/17 and have decided not to commit to new partnerships until the review is complete. In the coming year, the Programme will have a much greater strategic focus 2016/17 $1.00 Actual 2016/17 We aim to gain matching investment through our Partnerships and so this is a good result. It is also worth noting that many partners also bring valuable in-kind support to a project. $1.22 Met Trend / / / / / /16

41 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 37 making the best possible use of the opportunities available. We have relationships and key contacts with a number of international health research funding agencies, and our Chief Executive, Professor Kath McPherson, is a member of the Heads of International Research Organisations (HIROS), which includes 18 of the major health research funding organisations around the globe. This international body meets to share good practice, to discuss global health research challenges, and identify opportunities to work collaboratively. Responding to urgent or emerging health issues We have developed flexible processes that allow for the immediate commissioning of research to meet urgent health sector and Government needs. In the past we have commissioned research to assist the Ministry of Health in dealing with the H1N1 flu epidemic and most lately, the campylobacter outbreak in Havelock North. Our KPIs for Impact 2: Strategic partnerships engage end-users, leverage benefit, and improve research uptake Mediumterm Target 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 1 new partnership Not met 1 new health technology Not met Performance indicator HRC forms strategic partnerships to maximise the utility and benefit of health research 1) Two new partnerships with end-users 2) Two new health technologies/treatments implemented as a result of research funded in partnership with the National Health Committee We have been reviewing the Partnership Programme in 2016/17 and have decided not to commit to new partnerships until the strategic review is complete. When we set this target, we envisaged that the Health Innovation Partnership would endure for a number of years. In reality, we have funded no new contracts since 2014/15 and so have very few contracts to yield outputs needed to meet this measure.

42 38 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Statement of responsibility For the year ended 30 June 2017 In terms of the Crown Entities Act 2004, we hereby certify that: We have been responsible for the preparation of these financial statements and statement of service performance and the judgements used therein. We have been responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control designed to provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability of financial reporting. We are responsible for any end-of-year performance information provided by the Health Research Council of New Zealand under section 19A of the Public Finance Act We are of the opinion that these financial statements and statement of service performance fairly reflect the financial position and operations of this Crown Entity for the year ended 30 June Dr Lester Levy, CNZM Chair Date: 30 October 2017 Professor Andrew Mercer Deputy Chair Date: 30 October 2017

43

44 40 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 HRC Outputs Introduction The funding the HRC receives from the Government to achieve our Outcomes, is administered through four Outputs. These Outputs provide the framework for reporting in our Statement of Service Performance. The first Output incorporates the research contracts we support; the second our careerdevelopment opportunities; the third our co-funding relationships with stakeholders; and the fourth covers the role the HRC has in health research ethics. In the following section, we describe the four Outputs, what the HRC has delivered, and measure our performance in reaching our targets.

45 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 41 Output 1: Health research contracts Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Cost 2016/17 Actual 2017 Budget 2017 Actual 2016 $(000) $(000) $(000) Funding from Crown 81,891 82,690 73,031 Interest Received Other - - Total Revenue 82,109 82,960 73,287 Cost of Output 83,604 86,375 73,256 Surplus (Deficit) (1,495) (3,415) 31 What we fund under this Output The HRC invests in health research contracts through contestable funding rounds and cofunding partnerships. This output covers the research contracted through our Annual Funding Rounds (AFR). Our Annual Funding Round The annual funding round is our major opportunity to support the best ideas of our research community. Ensuring that the assessment and contracting processes for research are equitable, free from conflict of interest, and identifying the best ideas is a major part of the work of the HRC. The HRC supports four different contract types through the annual funding round (see Table 2). Table 2. HRC research contract types offered through Output 1. Contract type Duration Value Projects (AFR) Up to 3 years $1.2m max Programmes (AFR) Up to 5 years $5.0m max Feasibility Studies (AFR) Up to 2 years $250k max Emerging Researcher First Grants (AFR) Up to 3 years $250k max Explorer Grants Up to 2 years $150k max The process of assessment, leading to funding decisions, consists of a two-stage process for most grants, approximately 240 expert committee members, and a further specialist reviewers. All new contracts are selected using our international best-practice method of peer review and are subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure delivery of contracted outcomes. (Note: the HRC is not obligated to pay the full value of the contract, as payment is made in accordance with satisfactory progress.) Internal audit In 2017, we commissioned Deloitte to undertake an independent review of our investment processes, as the first in a series of internal reviews aimed at ensuring that we are operating in the most efficient and effective way possible. The report found that overall, there is a comprehensive application assessment process for the awarding of grants. We have rated HRC s grant award process as well controlled. Deloitte found that the HRC has: clear investment principles and strategic outcomes; comprehensive processes and procedural guidelines; and well-controlled application of grant award policies and processes. Some areas where the HRC could improve processes were identified and these included mitigating key person risk (where organisations become heavily reliant on certain individuals) because the HRC is a small organisation and the technical expertise and experience of the Research Investment Managers is not easily replaced by other staff.

46 42 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 The HRC will adopt all the recommendations to fine-tune our processes. Funding research to improve Māori and Pacific peoples health outcomes We have specific processes for funding research relevant to Māori and Pacific peoples. The HRC s statutory Māori Health Research Committee and standing Pacific Health Research Committee advise on the strategic direction and oversee the process, making the final funding recommendations to the Council. As far as possible, we make sure that there is appropriate expertise available to review culturally specific research paradigms and methods and to understand the context and drivers of research. Our Research Investment Streams supporting high-quality, high-impact research Applicants apply to one of four different Research Investment Streams (RIS). These represent broad priority areas for HRC s research investment, and reflect our drive to deliver value for money by ensuring that investment is directed to areas of greatest research need and opportunity. The four Research Investment Streams, and the indicative proportion of new investment, are detailed below. Our KPIs for Output 1 Annual Performance indicator Average number of expert reviewers engaged in assessing each research proposal for the annual funding round Target 2016/ Actual 2016/ Met Annual Performance indicator Time between receipt of Expressions of Interest to invitation to proceed to full proposal Target 2016/17 Improving Outcomes for Acute and Chronic Conditions in NZ (approximately 35-40% of funds) Research supported in this stream will contribute to the understanding, prevention, diagnosis and management of noncommunicable conditions. Rangahau Hauora Māori (approximately 10% of funds) Despite the international competition, we continue to maintain this strict standard. We believe that this is a pivotal part of the system that ensures the quality of our investment decisions Trend: 3.5 in 2015/16 New Zealand Health Delivery (approximately 20% of funds) This is our portfolio for research that will have an immediate impact on our health system, delivering better care and systems or reducing costs. Teams include health professionals and stakeholders to increase the utility and uptake of the research. One of the key tenets of the HRC s approach is ensuring applications are reviewed by experts. Many funders are struggling to maintain a rigorous peer-review process. We are proud of the standard we maintain 2 3 months Actual 2016/ Met Timeliness in making funding decisions is critical. Applicants need to know as early in the process as possible if they are not likely to be supported We have never failed to meet this target, and met it again this year despite receiving a record number of funding applications (due to the announcement of new funding being available) Trend: 2.5 in 2014/15 Basel: 2.7 in 2015/16

47 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 43 The stream supports Māori health research improving Māori health outcomes, health equity and quality of life. Health and Wellbeing in NZ (approximately 30-35% of funds) Our KPIs for Output 1 Annual Performance indicator Percentage of Māori reviewers on the Rangahau Hauora Māori committee assessing research proposals that are led by Māori Research funded through this stream will contribute to health and wellbeing throughout the life-course. The stream recognises that enhancing health and wellbeing is the best long-term strategy to reduce demand on the health system. Investment in 59 contracts by health issue in 2016/17 ($m) Target 2016/17 100% Actual 2016/17 100% Met If we are to generate research findings that are accepted and taken up by the Māori community, we must maintain specialised funding processes that incorporate Māori values, knowledge and expertise. We do this by tailoring our peer-review process specifically to Māori research, so that applicants know that the cultural importance and relevance of their methodologies and ideas will be understood and appreciated. The number of Māori reviewers involved in this process is a good measure of how successfully we are doing this. We place great importance on culturally appropriate funding models, and are committed to maintaining the quality of our processes in this regard Trend: This measure has been at 100% since we started recording it in 2010 Explorer grants The aim of Explorer Grants is to provide seedsupport, enabling researchers to explore transformative research ideas at an early stage, ahead of an application for greater investment through standard funding mechanisms. Ngā Kanohi Kitea HRC supports iwi, hapū, and Māori community groups to address community-identified health needs through a specific funding opportunity. Funding will be derived from the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund. An important component of the scheme will be the development of capacity to engage in research.

48 44 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 The HRC is the main sponsor of New Zealand s health research workforce. To this end, we have set targets for the number of full-time equivalent positions that we support, and we undertake an analysis every year of all the individuals supported on current contracts. This gives us vital, and unique, information on the health research workforce in New Zealand, and strengths and gaps in capacity and capability. We have evaluated our success in creating career pathways for Māori in 2017 (see the summary of results on p32). The HRC has awarded an unprecedented seven research projects focusing on improving the health of New Zealand s Pacific community (with a combined value of $6.3m). Alignment with HRC s outcome framework Health research contracted through this Output delivers to the following outcomes: Outcome 1: New knowledge, solutions and innovations improve health; Outcome 2: The healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation; Outcome 3: The best clinicians and health researchers are supported and retained in New Zealand, and Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness, and uptake of health research is increased. Our KPIs for Output 1: Annual Performance indicator Number of research positions on HRC contracts Target 2016/ Actual 2016/ The HRC has a critical role in supporting and building the health research workforce in New Zealand. Our goal is to support approximately 2000 positions on contracts at any given time.. We have met our target for workforce positions. This figure includes individuals who are contributing to a contract, but do not require salary support. Met Trend / / / / /16

49 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 45 Output 2: Career-development contracts Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Cost 2016/17 Actual 2017 Budget 2017 Actual 2016 $(000) $(000) $(000) Funding from Crown 7,073 6,953 5,898 Interest Received Other Total Revenue 7,220 7,189 6,137 Cost of Output 7,431 8,225 6,900 Surplus (Deficit) (211) (1,036) (763) What we fund under this output The HRC offers a programme of careerdevelopment awards, each aimed at addressing a gap in the health research workforce and building vital capacity. All career-development awards are made after expert review of the potential and record of the applicants and their proposed research. In 2016/17, six Sir Charles Hercus Postdoctoral s (SCHPF) were awarded. This is the highest number that we have ever supported in one year. The SCHPF are among the HRC s most prestigious fellowships, and are available to outstanding emerging researchers (4 8 years post PhD) who wish to establish careers in health research in New Zealand. The aim of this scheme, established in 2003, is to support future leaders in health research, and to build capacity for world-class research that contributes to health and economic gains for New Zealanders. A recent evaluation of the scheme demonstrated that it plays an important role in advancing the careers of New Zealand s most talented health researchers. Former Hercus Fellows said that the awards had helped them to establish themselves as independent researchers, form research teams, and build relationships with collaborators. Fellows had received significant recognition of their work, including the Zonta Science Award, the Prime Minister s Prize for Science Media Communication, the Royal Society of New Zealand s Callaghan Medal, and the HRC s Liley Medal. In 2016/17, 55 Career Development Awards were approved, including Clinical Research Training s, Disability Research Our KPIs for Output 2 Annual Target 2016/ Actual 2016/ Met Trend 4 4 Performance indicator Average number of HRC Project or Programme contracts awarded to Sir Charles Hercus Postdoctoral (SCHPF) award recipients The SCHPF is awarded to future research leaders. We track the careers of recipients to see if they remain in health research (see performance indicator in Outcome 3, p30). If we have identified strong candidates they should compete successfully in future HRC funding rounds.. This is well within the range that we hoped to see. Our SCHPF Fellows are achieving great things and demonstrating that they are continuing to attract HRC support shows we are addressing future workforce capacity and assisting research providers with succession planning / / / / /16

50 46 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Placement Awards, Māori and Pacific Health Research Career Awards, Foxley and Girdlers s, and Practitioner Research s. The HRC recognised 11 researchers with the first HRC Established Researcher Awards, for outstanding contributions to health research excellence, leadership, and impact. In 2016/17, the Council also approved a further $1.0m to support two fellowships for leaders in Māori health research, which will be actioned in August We have evaluated our success in creating career pathways for Māori in 2017 (see the summary of results on p32). In addition to awarding an unprecedented seven research projects focusing on improving the health of New Zealand s Pacific community in the past year; we have also met our higher target for the number of Pacific Career- Development Awards funded. Alignment with HRC s outcome framework Career development contracts supported through this Output, deliver to the following outcomes: Outcome 2: The healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation. Outcome 3: The best clinicians and health researchers are supported and retained in New Zealand, and Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness, and uptake of health research is increased. Our KPIs for Output 2: Annual Target 2016/ Actual 2016/17 11 Met Performance indicator Number of Pacific Health Research Scholarships awarded (including Masters, PhD, and postdoctoral awards) We have increased our focus on Pacific workforce development with the introduction of two new types of scholarships. Last year we funded 11, and so increased our targets We were able to maintain the higher number of Pacific career development contracts awarded that we achieved in 2015/16. Together with the higher number of research contracts awarded to Pacific investigators this year, this indicates that we are making progress in building capacity to address Pacific health issues. Trend: 6 in 2014/15, 11 in 2015/16 Annual Performance indicator Number of Māori Health Research Scholarships awarded (including Masters, PhD, and postdoctoral awards) Target 2016/ Actual 2016/17 We have had a sustained focus on Māori health research workforce development and aim to achieve a steady increase in the size of the Māori health research workforce We were able to further increase the number of Maori career development contracts awarded in the 2016/17 year. 13 Met Trend: 9 in 2014/15, 11 in 2015/16

51 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 47 Output 3: Co-funding relationships Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Cost 2016/17 Actual 2017 Budget 2017 Actual 2016 $(000) $(000) $(000) Funding from Crown 4,155 3,353 4,163 Interest Received Other Total Revenue 4,906 4,368 5,139 Cost of Output 4,420 5,192 2,942 Surplus (Deficit) 486 (824) 2,197 Scope of the Output HRC co-funds research through our Partnership Programme which delivers research that meets the needs of policymakers and those involved in healthcare delivery. Our partnership model allows us to pool our resources with those of our funding partners so that the research we re able to support is more substantive than each agency could afford to commission alone. Having multiple agencies involved increases the utility and uptake of the resulting research. The HRC can offer expertise and processes that are not available to many of our partners, meaning that the projects commissioned are more likely to be robustly designed and deliver value for the investment. Co-funding is a useful tool to promote the ownership of health-research outcomes by other agencies, thereby increasing the likelihood that there will be transfer of research knowledge and translation into tangible change in policy or practice. The HRC invests in co-funding relationships through the Partnership Programme and the International Relationships Fund. The Partnership Programme The HRC established the Partnership Programme in 2000 to deliver research that more effectively meets the knowledge needs of policy-makers, planners, and those involved in healthcare delivery. Through the Programme, the HRC partners directly with stakeholders to commission research. Since the inception of the scheme, we have entered into funding agreements with a wide range of partners both government and non-government agencies. Use of the HRC s expertise and processes for commissioning research is a prerequisite in all funding agreements. We also commission Our KPIs for Output 3 Annual Target 2016/17 4 Actual 2016/17 5 Exceeded Performance indicator Number of Research Partnerships for NZ Health Delivery (RPNZHD) contracts awarded These partnerships deliver research that is needed by the health sector for planning, service delivery, or patient care. Researchers team with health-sector stakeholders to increase the utility of the research. These projects are a key part of our strategy to achieve this impact and so we will continue to fund four new projects per year.. We have maintained our investment in these contracts and are currently reviewing them to establish how we can better integrate this investment with our New Zealand Health Delivery Research Investment Stream Trend: 4 in 2014/15; 4 in 2015/16

52 48 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 health research on behalf of other funders who wish to take advantage of these processes, but do not require co-funding from the HRC. In 2016/17, the HRC, Ministry of Health, and Healthier Lives National Science Challenge funded three contracts designed to generate an evidence-base to support innovative, effective approaches to the prevention and management of diabetes. In 2016/17, the HRC and PHARMAC have partnered to improve knowledge of medicines use in New Zealand. Under the new Joint Pharmaceuticals Research Fund, the HRC has funded two projects. In 2016/17, the tripartite initiative between the HRC, Breast Cancer Cure, and The New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation announced funding for three contracts. Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) funds joint programmes that target lifestyle-related or chronic problems such as heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, lung diseases, and mental health. The HRC joined the Alliance in 2017, with the support of MBIE. The GACD includes public funding agencies, from three of New Zealand s major research partners: Australia, Canada, and China. The GACD has committed to making mental health a global development priority, and the HRC s first initiative as part of GACD is to fund research worth up to $2 million into mental health for Māori and Pacific youth. In partnership with the Ministry of Health, the HRC will fund researchers to develop innovative strategies to support at-risk young people who have mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, or bipolar affective disorders. Catalyst Crown Fund The Catalyst Crown Fund (CCF, previously The International Relationships Fund) has been created by MBIE to foster international collaboration for science and technologylinked activities which advance New Zealand s national interests. The HRC administers several Catalyst Fund programmes, which are detailed below. In 2016/17, the HRC assessed applications for funding under the NZ-China Strategic Research Alliance. The purpose of this fund is to develop collaboration opportunities through the creation and sharing of knowledge, insights, networks, and research and commercial partnerships. The HRC has made recommendations to MBIE to enable it to make final funding decisions in collaboration with its Chinese counterpart. In 2016/17, the HRC has allocated several NZ- US Enabling Grants according to a work plan on non-communicable diseases in the Pacific region, with a specific focus on prevention of childhood obesity. These are seeding grants, designed to support the development of linkages and collaborations between researchers in New Zealand and the United States of America. The Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) The Human Frontier Science Program aims to fund frontier research in the life sciences. The current members of the International Human Frontier Science Program Organization (HFSPO) are New Zealand, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union. New Zealand s membership of HFSP is via the HRC, with funding support from MBIE. The HRC s current Crown Funding Agreement for the 17/18 financial year provides funding support for another year. The HRC is continuing to support New Zealand researchers to apply to HFSP rounds, which are very competitive. E-Asia The E-ASIA Joint Research Programme is a multilateral funding scheme designed to support joint research projects among the ASEAN +8 countries. Members have prioritised funding in scientific or technological fields, or solutions to environmental and societal challenges. The Programme also aims to raise research capacity in the East and South East Asian regions by promoting collaborations through workshops and other means. The HRC represents New Zealand as a Member Organisation, and in 2016 hosted a meeting of the E-ASIA network and administered a funding round for research on infectious disease. In 2016/17, $0.45m will be invested in one three-year research project on either

53 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 49 infectious diseases or cancer. The project will involve New Zealand researchers in collaboration with individuals from at least two other E-Asia members. International collaborations Other new developments in 2016/17 include: The HRC has negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding on scientific cooperation with the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). The arrangement paves the way for establishing new scientific partnerships and strengthening existing collaborations, to foster breakthroughs in biomedical research and to promote career development for researchers from both countries. The HRC is facilitating a pilot for the European Commission with researchers in Australia on how to implement its Joint Program Initiative A healthy diet for a healthy life with countries in the Asia- Pacific region. The HRC is supporting MBIE in its development of a new strategy for international science collaboration. Our KPIs for Output 3 Annual Target 2016/17 Maintain relationship Actual 2016/17 Met Performance indicator Number of new contracts supported through the Health Innovation Partnership fund This partnership provides much needed evidence on the utility and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. We have managed to maintain and grow the partnership with the Ministry of Health to create a broader, strategic portfolio of coinvestment (see text) Alignment with HRC s outcome framework Career development contracts supported through this Output, deliver to the following outcomes: Outcome 1: New knowledge, solutions and innovations improve health. Outcome 2: The healthcare system is improved through research evidence and innovation. Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness and uptake of health research is increased.

54 50 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Output 4: Contribution to policy, regulatory and ethical frameworks Income and expenditure in 2016/17 under this output Cost 2016/17 Actual 2017 Budget 2017 Actual 2016 $(000) $(000) $(000) Funding from Crown Interest Received Other Total Revenue Cost of Output Surplus (Deficit) (8) Scope of the Output Under this output, the HRC undertakes regulatory activities and safety monitoring, and provides strategic advice on health research issues. These activities are provided primarily through the work of several HRC committees. Our impacts for this output are detailed below. We make our contribution to the national ethics and regulatory environment for health

55 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 51 research primarily through the work of our committees: the HRC Ethics Committee, the Gene Technology Advisory Committee (GTAC), the Standing Committee on Therapeutic Trials (SCOTT), and the Data Monitoring Core Committee (DMCC). The HRC Ethics Committee The HRC Ethics Committee (HRCEC) provides advice on urgent or emerging ethical issues to provide value to partners, to champion the integrity of health research, and to manage its potential risks and benefits. These might include issues arising from genetic research, inequities or disparities in health, or from strategies on health and/or health research. The HRCEC also reviews the annual reports of approved Institutional Ethics Committees and advises on any issues raised. HRCEC is responsible for accrediting all the Health and Disability Ethics Committees (HDECs) and Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) in New Zealand. Informed consent In 2017, the Health and Disability Commissioner sought advice from the HRCEC about research with participants who are unable to provide informed consent (e.g. those in intensive care). The Committee considered both the ethical dimensions and the legal framework in NZ, and advised that since evidence-based care could improve health outcomes in these patient groups, research should be allowed, with important restrictions. These restrictions should include proof that research questions couldn t be answered another way; that consent has been sought where possible; that an independent clinician has provided consent in consultation with whānau; that the research has been reviewed and approved by an accredited research ethics committee; and that all safety risks have been be minimised in relation to benefits for current or future participants. Further, the Committee recommended a review of NZ s legal framework, with changes to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act and to the Code of Rights. These changes would establish the lawfulness of research involving non-consenting participants; institute legally binding safeguards; clarify the accountability and function of researchers and ethics committees; and incorporate the attitudes and values of tangata whenua, including notions of collective decision-making. Big data In 2017, the HRC EC provided advice to Precision Driven Health, a partnership between Orion Health, the, and Waitemata District Health Board, which has support from MBIE. Precision Driven Health is a commercial entity which aims to apply new data-science techniques to enable individuals to better manage their own health. It uses and links data from a range of sources including health information systems, consumer devices, social networks, and genetic testing. Potential ethical challenges associated with these massive volumes of data include collection, consent, privacy, data linkage, security interpretation, and managing the range of potential options for research. The HRC is offering appropriate guidance on these issues, and may help Precision to establish a governance group or process for managing ethical questions, including recognition of the rights and interests of Māori. The HRC can also link NZ entities like Precision with work that has been done by international counterparts overseas, such as organisations in the UK which are currently implementing recent European legislation in this area. Alignment with HRC s outcome framework Activities supported through this deliver to the following outcome: Outcome 4: The impact, responsiveness and uptake of health research is increased.

56 52 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Our annual KPIs for Output 4 1. Number of Ethics Notes published to inform researchers of issues on ethics in health research Target 2016/17 1 These notes are an important tool for reaching the health research community and so we have used their publication as a metric for disseminating key information and advice. Actual 2016/17 1 Met We have reduced the number of publications per year so that we can focus on increasing the quality and relevance of the content. One quality publication is sufficient to communicate the key messages and updates annually Trend: 3 in 2013/14; 2 in 2014/15, and 2 in 2015/ Percentage of appeals resolved within the target timeframe of 6 weeks from acceptance of the appeal Target 2016/17 100% Timeliness is key for responding to appeals on the decision of an HDEC because researchers cannot proceed with their work until a resolution is obtained, funders cannot release the funds, and the HDEC cannot close the case. Although we get few appeals (there has not been one since 2013), this is an important function for the HRC Actual 2016/17 No appeals received Not measured We were unable to calculate this measure because we received no appeals in the timeframe. This is a positive thing, as it means that no applicants thought that they had been dealt with unfairly and so no intervention was required from the HRC. Trend: Not calculated in 2014/15 or 2015/16 because there were no appeals. 3. Number of HDECs reviewed and approved by the HRC annually Target 2016/17 4 Approving HDECs is an important role for the HRC and so we continue to set targets. Actual 2016/17 4 Met This is an invaluable service for the national health research ethics system, and the HRC has a key role to play in ensuring that all HDEC s meet the same high standard. Trend: 4 in 2013/14; 4 in 2015/16

57

58 54 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Part 3: Organisational information Meet Our People Ethnicity Asian/Indian 7 14 Māori % Pacific peoples 30% UK/European Australian NZ European Age 10% Average length of service 8.5 yrs Staff turnover in 2016/17 10% 23% years years % Employment type Disability Hearing/ vision impairment Other 21 Full-time Part-time 28 No disability reported The Health Research Council of New Zealand aims to be an Employer of Choice. To that end, a range of strategic and operational procedures are in place as described below. Our leadership team and Council regularly review our performance according to the key elements recognised as required for being a good employer. Employee numbers at the Health Research Council have stayed relatively steady with 27 full-time equivalent staff at the end June of 2017.

59 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 55 The infographic (left) outlines the make-up of our staff which is diverse across all domains; we aim to ensure our workplace is accessible for diversity across these domains. For example, we have some members of staff with specific health needs across a range of conditions (some health conditions and disabilities are not disclosed as is a person s right). We have two staff members who play a key role and who have disclosed their disability to the Council and we work to ensure the worksite is accessible to them. However, we also wish to ensure our workplace is accessible to potential disabled employees. To that end, we have engaged with an independent organisation (Be Accessible) which has helped us identify steps to facilitating the accessibility of our organisation as an employer of choice for disabled people. We are further exploring a programme offered by Be Accessible to support an internship for young disabled people to work with our organisation. We have ensured our work site is accessible to people with mobility impairment (such as wheelchair use). Our health and safety committee regularly reviews aspects of the workplace that might impact on those members of staff and visitors with specific needs, as well as more generally. As might be expected, given our mandate, we have a high proportion of staff with doctoral degrees and/or degree-level and professional qualifications. We also have a number of staff without formal academic qualifications. Leadership, accountability, and culture Following a change in the structure of the leadership team and associated accountabilities in 2016, HRC has enjoyed a period of stability in the senior leadership team. Leaders of each portfolio of work meet weekly to identify key areas of opportunity, issues of concern, and priority initiatives. Information about key activities and priorities is shared with all staff via reporting lines (face to face and written) to ensure clarity and transparency. Staff have opportunities to give feedback directly to the CE via a monthly meeting (or one-to-one meetings) and through surveys of staff opinion regarding ideas for development, and feedback about the Council as a place to work. Our most recent Ask Your Team survey signalled extremely high engagement with a 97% response rate and the survey identified a number of areas that staff feel are working extremely well. One area where staff indicated improvement could be made was in better understanding how to access development and training opportunities. This has led to an overhaul of our processes and investment in this regard. We have a very active Council who monitor performance, challenge the leadership team, and provide a key role in ensuring accountability within the organisation. Representation on our Council is diverse in relation to gender, background, and ethnicity. We adopt a constant quality-improvement approach to facilitating development of the organisation and ensuring we proactively engage with and respond to our many stakeholders, and facilitate our influence upon the system within which we work. The culture of the organisation is open and friendly, with a clear focus on achieving our mandate. The leadership model is one of inclusivity and transparency in order to support and encourage all staff to perform at their optimum. For the first time, the organisation has identified core values and these are embedded into position descriptions and decision making. Recruitment, selection, and induction HRC follows Equal Employment Opportunities guidelines (EEO). Our emphasis is always on recruitment of the best person to do the job regardless of gender, nationality, disability, or age. We receive human resources support from an approved external agency, to enable us to ensure impartial and transparent employment processes that guarantee there is no barrier to employing the best people for the job. The Council has a comprehensive induction and on-boarding process which provides operational and support information. New employees are individually talked through the organisation s policies and procedures, which are reviewed and updated on a regular and scheduled basis that is monitored by the office of the Chief Executive. All staff are invited to comment on and regularly review the Council s EEO policy (and other policies) with the senior leadership team and through our Ask Your Team survey which is anonymous.

60 56 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Employee development, promotion, and exit This year, in response to feedback from staff, the process for identifying and supporting training and development opportunities was identified as a priority and updated. All staff members are now actively encouraged to identify their particular needs and interests and develop their skills knowledge through attending in-house and external training courses and attending conferences in their field of expertise. A positive, equitable approach to staff development is achieved through allocating each staff member a defined training and development budget, and through developing a culture of constant learning. Employees are encouraged to initiate and take part in development and social opportunities in team building. In the past 12 months, employees have taken part in a range of activities to celebrate both Māori language week and Pacific cultural awareness activities as well as a series of workshops on enhancing communication to strengthen collaborative working. There is a formalised annual performance review system which is also intended to enable staff to reach the goals and objectives identified for them whilst finding opportunities for their development within the organisation. A twice annual formal appraisal session has been introduced along with all managers engaging informally with their staff around any concerns arising between these formal sessions to ensure performance is acknowledged and difficulties addressed. As we are a comparatively small, and very stable workplace, opportunities for promotion are somewhat limited. In view of this, opportunities are being provided for a small number of experienced team members to take on more senior roles within their teams. For those in the organisation where opportunities for promotion are not currently available, the leadership team approach is to encourage and facilitate autonomy and to acknowledge success and achievement. We have extremely high staff retention rates. However, on occasions where staff do resign or retire, our policy is for the reporting manager to ensure the appropriate actions are undertaken to manage the exit, support the staff member who is leaving and address needs that arise for other staff and for the organisation. On occasions where exit issues arise that are out of the ordinary, we utilise the support of our human resources team. Flexibility and work design The organisation offers a flexible approach to personal circumstance through flexible hours; glide time; opportunities for part-time employment to facilitate return for people on parental leave and those with other commitments; and an Employee Assistance Programme. Staff can also request to work from home in special circumstances. Work flow is monitored by managers to ensure appropriate support is given to staff at times of high pressure. Although we have multiple streams of work, we have a one HRC approach so that there is cross-portfolio working and collaboration on new initiatives. Remuneration, recognition, and conditions The organisation takes part in regular national salary surveys to ensure its salaries are benchmarked against a range of public and private organisations. In 2016, we initiated a review of all positions to inform development of a Remuneration Strategy to guide changes in remuneration. This process was completed in June 2016 and as roles change or new roles are created, advice on market remuneration guides remuneration offered. We have a comprehensive set of policies regarding conditions of employment that are regularly updated and reviewed as noted in other parts of this section of the Annual Report. In 2016/17, we have undertaken a full review and update of a number of policies in light of change in legislation or heightened awareness in the sector to protect and support staff. Key examples are our health and safety policy and fraud-prevention policies, where we have instituted access to an anonymous whistleblowing hotline for staff. Harassment and bullying prevention Clear policies concerning harassment and bullying prevention are in place, and are regularly discussed and reviewed within the organisation at both the HRC team and Board levels. Our primary prevention strategies are to have a very clear principle of zero tolerance, to have an agreed set of values and principles by which staff work, and having a clear and transparent communication approach about new initiatives or change. On

61 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 57 occasions where a behaviour observed by any member of staff is perceived to be a potential precursor to harassment or bullying (such as short temper or anxiety), discussion with the staff members concerned is enacted (by their line manager or the Chief Executive) to address the cause of the issue and make appropriate referral (for example to the Employee Assistance Programme). In cases of bullying or harassment, the policy is adhered to and human resources expertise engaged. All staff and Council members are reminded of the policy and the organisation s zero tolerance. The Council recently reviewed its harassment and bullying policy, following the recent completion and dissemination of best-practice sexual harassment policy guidelines by the State Services Commission. A safe and healthy environment There is an active Health and Safety Committee which meets regularly to ensure a safe and healthy environment. Each member of the Committee has a specific responsibility, including a specific portfolio for health and wellbeing at work. We encourage reporting of any issues of concern and a register of these is kept along with the Committee s response or recommendation. These reports are provided to the Chief Executive. There is a review of health and safety at the start of each Board meeting and the Risk and Assurance Sub-committee of the Board considers health and safety in detail including a comprehensive site visit each year and a meeting with the Health and Safety Committee. We provide access for staff to an Employee Assistance Programme with regular updates on that service circulated generally. Specific advice or referral is provided to staff on occasions where a manager feels this is warranted. The organisation provides a number of health and wellbeing supports to staff including ergonomic work station assessment for new staff, or if discomfort is reported, and free flu inoculations are available to all staff at the beginning of winter.

62 58 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Permission to Act Disclosure of the Council Crown Entities Act 2004 section 68(6) Interest/Specified class of interest to which permission relates Who gave permission to act and date Permission to act Conditions Employment at the institution in the same department of a First Named Investigator submitting an application for funding G Fraser, Chair, HRC Board 14 June 2006 Remain in the room but not participate in the discussion As long as minimum interest and not in an administrative role Employment at the institution which is the subject of an application for funding G Fraser, Chair, HRC Board 14 June 2006 Take part in discussion relating to the matter Comment on fact only Employment at the institution which is the subject of an application for funding whose involvement is deemed to be helpful G Fraser, Chair, HRC Board 14 June 2006 Remain in the room and participate in the discussion but not in the decision Particular situation noted in the minutes None of the permissions were amended or revoked. Membership of Council and statutory committees As at 30 June 2017 Council Dr Lester Levy, CNZM (Chair) Dr Will Barker Professor Jeroen Douwes Dr Monique Faleafa Professor Parry Guilford Professor Lesley McCowan, CNZM Professor Andrew Mercer Mr Tony Norman, ONZM Associate Professor Suzanne Pitama Ms Suzanne Snively, ONZM Professor (Adjunct) of Leadership, Business School Managing Director, Mint Innovation, Director, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington Chief Executive, Le Va, Wise Trust, Director, Cancer Genetics Laboratory and the Centre for Translational Cancer Research,, Dunedin Head of Department, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,, Director, Virus Research Unit, Department of Microbiology and Immunology,, Dunedin Governance and finance advisor, Whangaparaoa Associate Dean Māori, MIHI (Māori/Indigenous Health Institute),, Christchurch Economic and business entrepreneurialism strategist, Wellington

63 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 59 Biomedical Research Committee Professor Andrew Mercer, (Chair) Professor Laura Bennet Professor Mike Berridge Associate Professor Bronwen Connor Professor John Kolbe Associate Professor Patrick Manning (Co-opted) Associate Professor Sally McCormick Associate Professor Julia Horsfield Associate Professor Alexander McLellan Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Otago, Dunedin Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,, The Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington Centre for Brain Research, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,, Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin Department of Biochemistry,, Dunedin Department of Pathology, Dunedin School of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Otago School of Medical Sciences,, Dunedin Public Health Research Committee Professor Jeroen Douwes (Chair) Associate Professor Jacqueline Cumming Dr Hinemoa Elder Professor Merryn Gott Professor Jane Koziol-McLain Associate Professor Patricia Priest Professor Robert Scragg Professor Mark Weatherall Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington Health Services Research Centre School of Government, Victoria Wellington, Wellington Māori health, School of Nursing,, School of Nursing. Technology Department of Preventive & Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine,, Dunedin Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health,, Department of Medicine,, Wellington

64 60 The HRC s Annual Report 2016/17 Māori Health Committee Ms Suzanne Pitama (Chair) Dr Meihana Durie (co-opted) Dr Shiloh Groot Dr Ricci Harris Professor Helen Moewaka Barnes Dr Sarah-Jane Paine Dr Mohi Rua Mr Paul White Dr Emma Wyeth Māori Indigenous Health Institute,, Christchurch Postdoctoral Fellow Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science,, Senior Research Fellow, Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare, Department of Public Health, Wellington, Director, Whariki Research Group, Massey University Albany Campus, Research Fellow, Te Kupenga Hauora Maori, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, Waikato Director, Torea Tai Consultants Ltd, Northland Director, Ngāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Dunedin School of Medicine, Ethics Committee Dr Lynley Anderson (Chair) Professor Parry Guilford Professor David Gareth Jones (CNZM) Professor Lesley McCowan, ONZM Ms Catherine Ryan Dr Barry Smith Associate Professor Huia Tomlins Jahnke Bioethics Centre, Medical and Surgical Sciences, Dunedin School of Medicine,, Dunedin Director, Cancer Genetics Laboratory and the Centre for Translational Cancer Research,, Otago Department of Anatomy, Otago School of Medical Sciences,, Otago Head of Department, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,, Lawyer, Lakes District Health Board, Rotorua Māori Education, Te Uru Maraurau, School of Māori and Multicultural Education, Massey University, Palmerston North

65